Sunday, December 06, 2015


And now for Ron Marz's responses to the week's tragedy, which are about what you could expect - he has used a violent crime alternately as an excuse for gun control advocacy, and to attack conservatives. For example, he said:

Nope, this is the situation any poor education system has decreed we live in, because they have no interest in teaching students why violence is wrong. This is also the situation that results from "cultural sensitivity" that hinders the ability to combat violent ideologies effectively.

Marz should be ashamed of himself for lack of interest in condemning any ideology that promotes murderous rampages. He also doesn't seem particularly concerned about the neighbor of the jihadists who purportedly bought the weapons used in the assault.

It was just an insult to laws that were meant to defend people's safety. Quit trying to fool anybody.

He couldn't bring himself to admit we have a jihad problem. The same kind of tragedy that's poisoned Europe, and which jelly spined politicians won't do anything to stop.

Again, there goes an ignoramus spouting off ditherings meant for himself. He must've written that as a vindictive reaction to his own hopes that it would be a right-winger, after every leftarded narrative was refuted. Just who are these people he speaks of? From what I can tell, he means conservatives in the USA, and not Islamofascists overseas. It's also extremely offensive how he implies everyone's "smugly pleased". *Ahem* NOBODY with half a brain is even remotely pleased whenever there's a bloodbath anywhere, and it makes no difference what the ideological background of the criminals is. What matters is that whoever the perpetrators of a violent crime were, they did something repulsive that goes throughly against human values.

How about some conservative websites? Maybe some milbloggers?

For Marz, it's lamenting all the way-too-easy scapegoats, because he's little more than a coward himself.

Marz has only demonstrated with all this how hermetically sealed off he is to what repellent ideologies are like.

He goes on to respond to a Rolling Stone story about a TV channel advertising guns, saying:

The answer is more self-defense, including in Europe. Oh, and interesting how he, like Dan Slott, is using Rolling Stone as a source of recommended news, after the offensive cover story they ran dedicated to one of the Boston marathon bombers. He just demonstrates yet again why he'd be better off refraining from these kind political issues.

No comments: